DanInKansas:This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess:If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation. Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.

lennavan:DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation. Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.

Mell of a Hess:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

Mell of a Hess:Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data.

Mikey1969:This is funny... While I can imagine the occasional Joe Sixpack forgetting about his gun and wandering into a school, or even the airport, I can NOT understand how a guy who specifically endorsed a change in the laws regarding bringing a gun onto school grounds would bring a gun onto school grounds.

Most likely, he assumed that a) the law doesn't apply to him, and b) if caught, he could just call a cop/mayor/attorney and this will never get prosecuted. AKA above the law, like cops.

Mell of a Hess:lennavan: DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation. Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.

HotWingConspiracy:As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.

Unreasonable bans based upon arbitrary characteristics is not "working with" firearm owners. Classifying all firearm owners as future murderers is irrational and dishonest.

No you haven't. You've tried to pass any and all anti-gun laws that anyone has even hinted at being able to curb firearms-related violence (with, or more generally without evidence that it can help, usually justifying it with the idea that "anything is better than nothing!"), and when your BS is called out for what it is you throw up you hands and loudly proclaim "See? We tried, but these gun nuts just won't compromise!".

LessO2:Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years? Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses. Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

HotWingConspiracy:YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

WHYCOME DEY SENDIN LAW 'BIDIN PEOPLE TO JAIL

Did somebody mention "Shotgun Joe" Biden, the guy who recommends blatantly illegal self-defense by shooting through doors with a shotgun?

There really are irrational gun-grabbers out there. My favorite was a person--in favor of these "gun-free" zones--who was shown a map of local schools with the radii of gun-free zones plotted on it. One freeway went through a zone. Someone asked her if it would be OK to set up a checkpoint on the freeway to stop everyone and check for guns, as they were technically felons (never mind there'd be no way to know you were anywhere near a school when going by at 70 mph).

She thought it was an AWESOME idea.

Not a rational person worth listening to, but that's exactly the sort that will push for more laws.

dittybopper:LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years? Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses. Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings. That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion. This is awkward.

I can't figure out why you liberals insist on calling people names. It does nothing for the conversation.

Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:

"There's a GAPING problem with your article. You simply dismiss the idea that mass shooters happened to target an area that was gun free out of "coincidence." That's a nice little way of dismissing what is more-than-likely a secondary motivation for the location of their rampage. Just because there's a bigger, more personal motivator for attacking, say, an elementary school, does NOT mean that the fact that its a gun free zone by law is irrelevant. There's no such thing as coincidence.Take Sandy Hook, for example. The Connecticut State Police Colonel said in New Orleans this year at the IACP annual conference that they believe Adam Lanza's motive for attacking Sandy Hook Elementary was because it was the path of least resistance wherein he could rack up the most kills, as in a video game. One of the primary reasons it was a path of least resistance is BECAUSE it was a gun free zone." Here's the source:http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1291408

What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain. Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1. You look like an idiot. Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings. If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

rkiller1:dittybopper: LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years? Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses. Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings. That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

And every day in the US, two children die from drowning. That's over 700 children under 14 annually.http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html

Clearly we need bathtub and swimming pool control. You don't need a bath tub you can have a shower, you don't need a swimming pool you can use a sprinkler.

What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain. Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1. You look like an idiot. Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings. If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.

Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry? The conversation has always been about licensed adults.

What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain. Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1. You look like an idiot. Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings. If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.

Ah, yes. The name caller. Welcome.

If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

I've never felt that way. I own several guns. I have been enraged as an adult and as a pubescent teen. Nope, never wanted to "escalate" my anger to the level of firing a handgun at a human being.

What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain. Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1. You look like an idiot. Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings. If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.

Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry? The conversation has always been about licensed adults.

What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain. Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1. You look like an idiot. Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings. If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.

I don't think it was students SAFE was aimed at. Did someone say students should be able to carry guns on campus?

Mell of a Hess:Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:

I'm really curious, I cited a study with numbers and data and actual facts and evidence. Where did you get your source that refuted it from? Well the cool part about the internet and Google is I can just copy/paste your post into Google and find it myself.

Google Search - "There's a GAPING problem with your article. You simply dismiss the idea that mass shooters happened to target an area "

About - Evan and Devin write about guns.This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun control. The site is authored by Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes.

You "refuted" a study with a goddamn BLOG? Are you serious? Let me get this straight.

Mell of a Hess:Dude, you're getting hammered. Do you want to go do some research and get back with us?

You want HotWingConspiracy to do some research and get back to us. And you're going to counter with BLOGS?

Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data.http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion. This is awkward.

Except every premise is flawed in your opinion article.

"No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way"

Yeah, because the vast majority of those were gun free zones and law abiding citizens pay attention to that law.

"Veteran FBI, ATF and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. "

Except the article itself points out that this case has NEVER HAPPENED. Not once. So we're afraid of something that might happen

AngryDragon:In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.

Ha. When you make things up, it makes it look like nutters who don't understand their own pet issue. With parental permission, there is no state in which posessing a large firearm is illegal. Taking them into a school, per this exact law we're defending, is a felony in every state, but that couldn't possibly be what you mean.